Examination of Witness (Questions 1400
- 1419)
TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 1998
VICE ADMIRAL
ALAN WEST
1400. Could you tell us whether it was passed
to the Foreign Office or not?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) Yes, of course, I can.
If you can jot it down.
1401. Just a last little group of questions,
if I may. ***?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) ***
1402. ***?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) ***.
1403. To the best of your knowledge was
any British intelligence passed to ECOMOG about the dispositions
of the junta?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) ***
1404. ***?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) ***
1405. Are you aware of any British intelligence
being passed to President Kabbah and his staff again on the dispositions
of the junta, which of course would have been of material interest
to them?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I am not aware of any
having been passed.
1406. As you know, Sandline were engaged
in a number of relief and humanitarian operations as well as military
operations, particularly after the counter-coup had taken place
and in the period up to it, and Sandline were operating or helping
to operate a particular helicopter and would have been therefore
very much wishing to know what the dispositions were of the junta's
forces, particularly any SAM systems and so on which they had.
Are you aware of any British intelligence being passed to Sandline
in that particular context?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I am not aware of any
of my people passing intelligence to them, but I know for example
the helicopter—and this is not really my area of responsibility—was
involved with the British frigate which was there. As I understand
it, the British frigate gave some assistance to it on a couple
of occasions. I think once it was a burst tyre and once it had
a bird strike or something like that. Whether the frigate at any
stage or anyone on the frigate mentioned, "Where are you
going? We are going up there. What is happening on the ground
there?" I would imagine, almost inevitably, from my time
commanding various ships and task forces, that they would have
discussed with them what was going on up-country because they
were flying their helicopter there. So on that level I suppose
you could call it more knowledge than intelligence, if you see
what I mean. Certainly at my sort of level, the operational and
strategic level, there was no intelligence being passed.
Sir John Stanley: Thank
you.
Chairman
1407. Admiral West, you did ask when you
would learn of the detailed points which the Committee would wish
to be followed up. The transcript of this morning's session should
be available for you on Thursday or Friday, and that will cover
the areas which Sir John has picked up.
(Vice Admiral Alan West) That is okay.
Mr Rowlands
1408. One supplementary question. Were you
aware, or were your staff aware, of a sort of queasiness that
ECOMOG was basically heavily Nigerian controlled and run?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I do not know about queasiness.
We knew ECOMOG was predominantly a Nigerian——the reason
it holds together as a force is because of the Nigerians. For
example, about 8,500 of them are Nigerians, they are the largest
contributors and it would not really function without the Nigerians
there.
1409. Are they still inside Sierra Leone
in large numbers?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) Yes, there are still
8,500 there. ***
1410. Did you receive any report from FCO
or elsewhere that any relationships with ECOMOG were to be at
extreme arm's length? Was there any view conveyed to you about
relations with the ECOMOG forces and the Nigerians in particular?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I am not aware of there
being any directions or instructions on that. ***
1411. ***?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) ***
Mr Wilshire
1412. One of the things which has become
clear to me is that people in your line of business are very precise
with your acronyms and very precise with your use of words. In
the Legg Report there are one or two occasions where people disagree
over exactly what was said. Can you give us your definition of
non-lethal equipment?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I can give my own personal
one. There will be a clearly defined definition of what it is
and I would always look at that when I was looking at any equipment
being provided. My assessment would be any equipment that in itself
could be used to actually kill (sic) a person or people.
1413. Non-lethal would be?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) So non-lethal would be
equipments that were not able to do that.
1414. But what sort of things would non-lethal
equipment include?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I would have thought
things like tins of beans, for example. You can argue that supplies
are absolutely essential for the troops. I say "beans",
supplies, those sorts of things. They are essential obviously
if troops are to operate because otherwise they die of hunger,
but they are not actually used to kill somebody.
1415. The Legg Report makes the point that
Mr Spicer would use the words "non-lethal equipment"
to be equipment which injured but did not actually kill. Is that
a meaning which would be used in the military?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) As I say, I do not think
I personally would say that, because it is quite difficult to
see something which injures but does not kill. *** If I were looking
at equipment, and if my people were looking at embargoes—and
this is why it is very important to get the precise details—I
would refer to exactly what was said because, as you say, these
definitions are so important.[6]
Chairman
1416. You will supply to the Committee the
standard definition?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I would not be the best
person to do that. I do not know who it is. Certainly within the
MoD it would be one of the policy divisions, I suppose, or someone
in the Foreign Office. I just do not know who would provide it.
Mr Wilshire
1417. If you were using the term "military
equipment", what would you be including in that?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I think I would use the
whole gamut of spares. Military equipment could include things
like guns, it does not have to, it could be things like Landrovers,
trucks, cargo planes; there is a whole raft of equipment all relating
to the military.
1418. So if somebody told you they were
supplying military equipment, you would instinctively want to
know whether that included arms and ammunition, or would you assume
it did not?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) I would not assume it
did not. I would want to know what exactly that meant, what exactly
was there.
1419. So when you send reports to the FCO
and other people, do you choose your words with care? If you have
a report which says "military equipment is being supplied",
would you seek to define what that equipment is or just leave
it as a general statement?
(Vice Admiral Alan West) What we are doing on
those occasions, of course, is passing on probably what is a report.
I would be interested in finding out what exactly that was, but
all we can report is what we have got. *** That would be something
that then becomes another strand of evidence which is put together
by my analysts to try and say, "Does this form a pattern?
What can I come up with as the overall view?"
6 Note by Witness: As I surmised, there appears
to be no standard definition of non-lethal equipment. Back
| 
